Story Highlights

“I was only following orders,” is a common defense used by many to duck responsibility.

Especially in large organizations, we tend to blame others before taking inventory of ourselves.

The benefit to the blame-shifter is clear: if someone else is the problem, the blame-shifter can avoid ever needing to change.

In order to avoid moral namelessness of the blame-shifter, do we have to expand our notions of moral responsibility to more effectively appropriate the consequences of our actions?

'I was only following orders'

One common example of blame-shifting responsibility happens in the roles we fill on behalf of large organizations.

While serving our respective roles, we tend to view the actions we perform as separate from what we would do in our individual capacity. As such, the roles we fill set the outer boundaries for our moral agency.

For example, individuals acting in the role of train operator may believe they were morally blameless because their role only involved the transportation of Jews to the camps.

After all, their role is only transportation. They bring people from point A to point B. It’s not the train operators’ role to know more than what is required of them. Thus, what happens in the death camps is not their concern.

Eventually, train operators may recognize their culpability and try to shift responsibility to higher-ups. As the old excuse goes, “I was only following orders.”

But, how bad does the smell have to get before the train operator questions his role?

Charity is in the eye of the beholder, eh? The late-night comics give their views on the Trump Foundation that is being forced to dissolve, thanks to a New York state investigation, http://bit.ly/2GusWPh USA TODAY

President Donald Trump has threatened to shut down the government if he doesn't get money for his border wall, but maybe the money needs to go toward language instruction instead, the late-night comics say, http://bit.ly/2R8r3eY USA TODAY

The "Real Housewives of D.C." may not have been the most popular in the television series franchise, but that didn't stop the real politicians of D.C. from recreating the show's drama during a meeting that was originally supposed to be closed door, the late-night comics say, http://bit.ly/2GcoN2j USA TODAY

In response, the higher-ups may argue that they were only tasked with overseeing the bigger picture. Thus, the greater the distance from the ultimate perpetrators, the less responsibility the supervisor holds.

Some further excuses usually go along the lines of: “My subordinate took matters into his own hands,” “I should not be held responsible for acts I did not commit,” or “I could not possibly have known everything that goes on under my watch.”

Are these distance defenses believable? It’s like 2008 financial CEOs saying: “I had no idea my subordinates were packaging and selling insecure mortgages to the American people.”

To minimize the desirability of blame-shifting, one solution may be to expand responsibility. The idea is that responsible officers should be accountable for what happens all the way down the chain of command, just as subordinates are responsible for carrying out their policy orders.

Expanding responsibility to hold individuals accountable

One famous example of this expansion occurred during the Second World War. Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was hanged for the crimes of his troops, who raped and slaughtered their way through the Philippines.

The War Crimes Tribunal attached liability to Yamashita based on his sweeping order to “do what is necessary” to quell insurrections. Or in the words of Henry II, “Would no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Supervisors who send well-intentioned orders down the chain of command do not interpret and commit the acts of their subordinates.

In a symbolic move, however, the Tribunal defied moral norms and expanded responsibility. Even though he had no knowledge of his subordinates’ crimes, Yamashita’s distance from the ultimate perpetrators did not liberate him from responsibility.

Dean Balaes(Photo: Submitted)

In its wisdom, the Tribunal understood that the buck stopped with Yamashita.

Yamashita shows that distance defenses should not save supervisors from being held accountable for crimes of their subordinates’ actions. And, at the same time, subordinates who are “just following orders” can be impressed with the reality that mindlessly following orders does not liberate them from responsibility.

In the context of the 2008 financial crisis, it’s widely acknowledged that corporate executives knew about the dangers of directing their subordinates to make and sell subprime mortgages. Greed brought our country’s economy to its knees, yet only one corporate executive was found responsible.

If morality is the source of the law, perhaps it’s time to expand our moral notions of responsibility to more effectively hold individuals accountable.

Dean Balaes is a dual degree student attending both Vanderbilt Divinity School and Law School.